Caller Tunes Need Separate Copyright Clearance: Calcutta High Court Rules Against Vodafone Idea

In Vodafone Idea Limited Vs Indian Performing Right Society Limited a significant ruling on music copyright and digital exploitation, the Calcutta High Court has held that Vodafone Idea Limited cannot legally use songs as caller tunes or ringtones merely on the basis of licences obtained from sound recording companies like Saregama India Limited.

A Division Bench comprising Justice Debangsu Basak and Justice Md. Shabbar Rashidi ruled that Vodafone must also obtain authorization from Indian Performing Right Society Limited (IPRS) for the use of the underlying literary and musical works contained in songs.

The dispute arose from Vodafone’s Value Added Services (VAS), which allow customers to use film and non-film songs as caller tunes and ringtones. Vodafone argued that its agreements with Saregama, which owns sound recordings, were sufficient and no separate royalty was payable to IPRS.

However, the Court rejected this argument and clarified that under the Copyright Act, 1957, sound recordings, lyrics, and musical compositions are distinct copyrights. The Bench emphasized that ownership of a sound recording does not extinguish the independent rights of lyricists and composers.

Relying heavily on the 2012 amendments to copyright law, the Court observed that authors of literary and musical works are entitled to royalties whenever songs are commercially exploited, except when a cinematograph film is exhibited as a whole in a cinema hall.

The Bench further held that Saregama lacked legal authority to license Vodafone for the underlying lyrics and music embedded in the recordings. Consequently, Vodafone was found to have no valid licence to commercially exploit such works without express permission from IPRS.

The Court also directed that money deposited during the litigation be transferred to IPRS, subject to an undertaking to refund the amount if it ultimately fails in the pending suits. Vodafone’s request for a stay on the judgment was refused.